Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:21:28 -0800
Reply-To: Kevin White <kevbob53@GMAIL.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Kevin White <kevbob53@GMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: I rather drive the Vanagon
In-Reply-To: <539834B8.8060907@gmail.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
This is an interesting thread. Having just returned home to AK from a winter long, 15,000 mile trip in our 84 Westy through the west/southwest, and having made differential and tire changes, I have some observations The trip covered the Cascades, across through ID, UT, AZ, NM and CO, with mountain passes to desert back roads and arroyos.
Like Dean, I have owned a Beetle, and a 71 Westy. Pretty much took these anywhere I wanted, including (the Westy) Colorado ski bumming, Alberta and BC skiing and ice climbing, and what most people these days would consider Jeep trails. This was all on pretty ratty tires, as student level funds were spent on other things. Traction was always good enough, although I do remember one time, in a serious snowstorm in BC, having my buddy's pile into the back as we were losing traction on a stretch of road clearly marked "Do Not Stop: Avalanche Zone". Problem solved, and the skiing was great that day.
Being generally clueless, I thought the Vanagon would be a similar vehicle. Wrong-O. I found out pretty quickly (an ice covered interstate in Wyoming) on our cross country trip the winter before last that the stock configuration was not going to work for our plans for the vehicle.
Last October/November saw a complete overhaul of the suspension and drive train, including a Peloquin differential, Airbags, and 15" Wheels with Nokian WRG2's. The vehicle is now a LOT more like that old Bus, although still heavier and probably less nimble.
The only times during the whole trip that we changed plans due to driving conditions involved visibility and concerns about other drivers, not the traction of our vehicle.
The guy's at AA Trans (RIP, Darryl, and thank you again) put it in perspective. Darryl's son (apologies, I'm blanking on his name) told me that after installing the Peloquin in his personal Syncro, his steep driveway no longer needed 4WD to climb. That said, it is still a two wheel drive vehicle.
I feel that this differential was well worth it for driving in snow, ice, sand, and mud. Once I was moving, I never spun a tire, and it was always easy to get moving, even on ice. This was without studs. No issues of any kind in sand or mud. I assume the other type of differntial upgrades would also be an improvement, but have no personal experience with them.
The tires and wheel size change was absolutely positive, as well. i chose 215/65, and would probably go bigger if I spent all my time in the desert.
The airbags were a great addition in regards to load management, and driveability in wind. The Syncro guys claim traction benefits, and they are probably right, although I feel it is minimal compared to the tires and differential.
Getting back to the original premise of the thread, "i'd rather drive the Vanagon", I couldn't agree more. With the Westy, we were able to get places (even in 2wd) that most RV's couldn't dream of reaching, and the beat up old VW seems to draw folks; we met some really, really great people, from all walks of life, and all ages.
Cheers
Kevin
|